Samuel Knox, Jr. v. Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
SAMUEL KNOX, JR.,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2024-1517
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 22-4230, Judge Scott Laurer.
______________________
Decided: September 9, 2024
______________________
SAMUEL K NOX , J R., Columbia, SC, pro se.
K ATY M. BARTELMA , Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by
BRIAN M. B OYNTON, MARTIN F. HOCKEY , J R., P ATRICIA M.
MCCARTHY ; CARLING K AY BENNETT , BRIAN D. G RIFFIN, Of-
fice of General Counsel, United States Department of Vet-
erans Affairs, Washington, DC.
______________________
Case: 24-1517 Document: 13 Page: 1 Filed: 09/09/2024

-- 1 of 5 --

KNOX v. MCDONOUGH 2
Before D YK, CHEN, and CUNNINGHAM , Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
Samuel Knox, Jr., a veteran of the United States Army,
proceeding pro se, appeals a decision from the U.S. Court
of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”). The
Veterans Court affirmed a decision of the Board of Veter-
ans’ Appeals (“Board”) denying him entitlement to service
connection for a sinus disability due to herbicide exposure,
dengue fever, and other conditions from his time in service.
The Veterans Court determined that the Board adequately
explained its reasoning, the Board did not clearly err in its
decision, and the Board did not fail to enforce the Depart-
ment of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) duty to assist. Because we
lack jurisdiction over Mr. Knox’s appeal, we dismiss.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Knox served on active duty in the United States
Army from April 1966 to April 1968, including a tour in
Vietnam. Mr. Knox’s service records from Vietnam show
Mr. Knox had “shoddy post cerv[ical] nodes,”1 as well as a
“[f]ever of undetermined origin,” which was suspected to be
from dengue. S.A. 15–16.
In December 2015, Mr. Knox applied for disability com-
pensation related to “constant draining of mucus mem-
brane and congestion,” as well as headaches and dizziness.
S.A. 13. Mr. Knox alleged that his conditions were caused
by the dengue fever that he suffered from during his ser-
vice. Mr. Knox also alleged his conditions were caused by
1 In his briefing, Mr. Knox explains that “shoddy
post cerv[ical] nodes condition is the draining of your para-
nasals due to lymphatic fluid drain from head and neck.”
Appellant’s Informal Br. 2; see also Appellant’s Informal
Br. 5.
Case: 24-1517 Document: 13 Page: 2 Filed: 09/09/2024

-- 2 of 5 --

KNOX v. MCDONOUGH 3
his exposure to herbicides during his service or other con-
ditions of service. In November 2016, the VA denied Mr.
Knox’s claim. In December 2016, Mr. Knox timely filed a
Notice of Disagreement (“NOD”). The VA reviewed the
NOD, and, again, denied the claim. Mr. Knox timely ap-
pealed to the Board.
In May 2019, the Board found that “[t]he medical evi-
dence reflects diagnoses of allergic rhinitis due to pollen
and chronic maxillary sinusitis, and the service treatment
records reflect an in-service diagnosis of sho[dd]y post cer-
vical nodes condition.” S.A. 13. The Board determined “a
VA examination is necessary to determine the etiology of
his current sinus disability,” which Mr. Knox had not re-
ceived. Id. The Board remanded to the Regional Office
(“RO”) to “schedule [Mr. Knox] for a VA examination to de-
termine the nature and etiology of his current sinus disa-
bility(ies)” and to evaluate whether it is likely that his
disabilities are related to his service. S.A. 13–14.
The RO issued a request to schedule the examination,
but Mr. Knox “informed VA that he did not want to report
for a VA examination pertaining to his claim and that his
claim should be evaluated based on the evidence of record.”
S.A. 8. The case then returned to the Board. The Board
determined that because Mr. Knox did not report for his
examination, it was proper to adjudicate the claim based
on the evidence in the record. The Board then applied the
Shedden test2 and concluded that “while the Veteran has a
2 “[I]n order to establish service connection or ser-
vice-connected aggravation for a present disability the vet-
eran must show: (1) the existence of a present disability;
(2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or in-
jury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present dis-
ability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated
Case: 24-1517 Document: 13 Page: 3 Filed: 09/09/2024

-- 3 of 5 --

KNOX v. MCDONOUGH 4
current diagnos[i]s of chronic maxillary sinusitis, and the
evidence shows that the Veteran had shoddy post cervical
nodes in service, the evidence of record persuasively weighs
against finding that the Veteran’s current diagnos[i]s be-
gan during service or is otherwise related to an in-service
injury, event, or disease.” S.A. 8. Thus, the Board denied
his claim.
Mr. Knox appealed, and the Veterans Court affirmed
the Board’s decision, finding the Board did not err in decid-
ing the case based on the evidence in the record without a
VA medical exam because Mr. Knox failed to appear for his
requested exam and did not show good cause for his failure
to appear. The Veterans Court also affirmed the Board’s
conclusion that the evidence in the record did not show a
nexus between Mr. Knox’s service and his disability. This
appeal followed.
D ISCUSSION
“Our jurisdiction to review decisions of the Veterans
Court is limited by statute.” Flores-Vazquez v.
McDonough, 996 F.3d 1321, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2021). “We re-
view ‘the validity of a decision of the [Veterans] Court on a
rule of law or of any statute or regulation . . . or any inter-
pretation thereof (other than a determination as to a fac-
tual matter) that was relied on by the [Veterans] Court in
making the decision.’” Id. (alterations in original) (quoting
38 U.S.C. § 7292(a)). “[A]bsent a constitutional question,
we ‘may not review (A) a challenge to a factual determina-
tion, or (B) a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to
the facts of a particular case.’” Id. (quoting § 7292(d)(2)).
In his briefing, Mr. Knox raises no coherent argument
that the Veterans Court failed to properly interpret a
during service.” Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166–
67 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Case: 24-1517 Document: 13 Page: 4 Filed: 09/09/2024

-- 4 of 5 --

KNOX v. MCDONOUGH 5
statute or regulation, nor does he present a constitutional
question. Mr. Knox essentially asks us to review and re-
weigh the evidence in the record. This is beyond our juris-
diction.
Because the Veterans Court did not elaborate on the
meaning of any statute, regulation, or constitutional ques-
tion in its opinion, we lack jurisdiction over this appeal.
DISMISSED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 24-1517 Document: 13 Page: 5 Filed: 09/09/2024

-- 5 of 5 --